University Senate Minutes - February 10, 1997
The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, February 10, 1997 in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.
Professor Jan Schach, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.
Members absent were: Debra Aaron*, Gary Anglin, John Ballantine, Vasant Bhapkar, Patricia Birchfield, Terry Birdwhistell, Darla Botkin, Joseph Burch, Mary Burke*, Johnny Cailleteau, James Campbell, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Jordan Cohen, Scott Coovert, Raymond Cox*, Virginia Davis-Nordin, Frederick DeBeer*, Philip DeSimone, Richard Edwards, Robert Farquhar, Juanita Fleming*, Richard Furst, Issam Harik*, Christine Havice, James Holsinger*, Edward Jennings*, Raleigh Jones, Jamshed Kanga, Laura Keith, Monica Kern*, Craig Koontz, Philipp Kraemer, Gretchen LaGodna, C. Oran Little, Loys Mather*, M. Pinar Menguc*, Jenny Miller, David Mohney*, Roy Moore*, Donald Mullineaux*, Santos Murty, David Nash, Phyllis Nash*, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry, Thomas Nieman, Melanie Onkst, Rhoda-Gale Pollack*, Shirley Raines, Thomas Robinson, Michael Rohmiller, Horst Schach, David Shipley, Edward Soltis*, David Stockham, Retia Walker, Charles Wethington*, Adam Wilhelm, Carolyn Williams, Eugene Williams, Lionel Williamson, Paul Willis, Emery Wilson, Stephan Wilson*, Phyllis Wise, Craig Wood.
* Absence Explained
Chairperson Schach asked if there were any additions or corrections to the October, November, or December 1996 minutes.
There were none and the minutes were approved as circulated.
The Chair made the following announcements:
I encourage all of you to cast your ballots for the position on the Board of Trustees. I can not emphasize enough how important that position is and that a very highly qualified, interested, and able individual be chosen. Please take this very seriously and encourage your colleagues to do the same. This is a very critical ballot. Also make sure to cast your ballot for the Senate as well.
You will also be receiving a memo calling for nominations for various committees. I would like to apologize for the call getting out late. Please get the message out that we are extending the deadline until Thursday, February 13, 1997. Anyone can e-mail their nominations to me. The Student Activities Board and the Senate Council are jointly sponsoring a new program called UK Speaks Out. The first session was on race issues.
The next session will be Wednesday, February 12, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Worsham Theater. I encourage you to come; you will find an interesting panel of both students, faculty, administration, and community members. There will be another session on March 4, 1997 on with Religion, March 25, 1997 on Censorship, and April 15, 1997 on sexuality. I encourage you to come. You will find it to be a very interesting experience. The first session on Race Issues was quite a success.
By now all of you have become aware of the situation with the Lexington campus budget. I think we all acknowledge we are going to be facing some challenges and potentially some opportunities regarding the budget. The 1997 budget is in fairly good shape. The more difficult questions revolve around the 1997-1998 budget. The budget will be operating on several assumptions including a 3% salary increase. It is going to be a real challenge to accomplish this while dealing with significant increases in fixed costs, special efforts to meet the goals of our strategic plan, softening of enrollment and resultant tuition revenue decreases, and certain long standing unbudgeted obligations and other pressures. It is also a time of opportunities, however. With the Governor looking very closely at helping higher education, we hope for the best.
Chancellor Zinser is taking some steps to promote more effective communications at each step of the planning process for the budget. Once the President's system-wide decisions are concluded, some time by the latter part of this month, each dean and vice chancellor will provide detailed budget guidelines and relevant information to their unit administrators and faculties. They will work together to take actions necessary to insure a balanced budget for 1998 and outline plans for making longer term decisions that will strengthen units on the Lexington Campus and University. Planning and budgeting decisions at the campus level will continue to be made in consultation with vice chancellors and deans. At the same time, Chancellor Zinser will review the information of the budget with me and with the Senate Committee on Institutional Finances and Resource Allocation chaired by Doug Poe. Plans are being made for the redesign of the Patterson Office Tower Plaza, the area out in front with the trees, sculpture and a water feature. President Wethington has invited the chair of our Academic Facilities Committee, Horst Schach, to participate with the office of Design and Construction in reviewing plans and making design recommendations. The redesign is being prompted by some of the severe pavement problems. The thought is that if effort and money are going to be put into taking care of some of the basic problems, that the space might as well be improved at the same time.
The following are AR and GR changes that the President's Office has asked to be reviewed by the Senate Council:
AR 3-1.1-5 - The Committee on Environmental Health and Safety. This relates to the charge of the committee. The change is for this committee to serve as the general safety committee to review and recommend policies and procedures for all areas of environment health and safety not covered by the Institutional Biosafety, Radiation Safety, and Chemical Safety Committees. To implement the University's scientific diving program.
The diving program has to do with certain aspects of environmental research. The Committee's areas of responsibilities include, but are not limited to, fire and life safety and code compliance. This changed has been endorsed by the Senate Council.
Part 7A1 - Proposed Amendment relating to the Honors Program. The amendment is to read "The Honors Program is an educational unit which is equivalent to a department." The proposal is to put a period there and to remove the section that says "and administratively responsible to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies." The chief administrative officer is a director who is equivalent to a chairperson. The proposed change is due to a restructuring of the organization of the Lexington Campus. The position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs has been restored and the Assistant Chancellor position deleted. The academic affairs matters assigned to the Assistant Chancellor and some of the responsibilities assigned to the Dean of Undergraduate Studies including the Honors Program have been assigned to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Research. This change is supported by the Chancellor of the Lexington Campus and also received the endorsement of the Senate Council.
The next proposed change pertains to two ARs that deal with the University of Kentucky retirement plan. Under the terms and conditions of the proposal faculty electing the phased retirement program may access retirement plan funds without separating from the University after the effective date initiating participation in the phased retirement program. The Senate Council endorses this change as a good improvement to that program. It means you can have access to your funds while you are still participating in the phased retirement program and that is not clear currently.
Jesse Weil ( Physics) said that he was Director of Graduate Studies in the Physics Department and he and some of the other directors of graduate studies who do recruiting of teaching assistants are very concerned right now because of the temporary cut in TA allocations to their departments and the impact that is having right in the middle of the recruiting season. It may be they will not be able to recruit any new graduate students for next year is some cases or if the TA cuts are rescinded they will come so late that the good students will not be available. Is the Senate Council planning to bring to the attention of the Administration what a grave disservice they are doing to the Graduate Programs in the University? The Chair stated that yes they had. They had their monthly breakfast with President Wethington and expressed to him at that time their concerns. While they support salary increases, they indicated their concern that those should not be made and at the expense of cutting academic programs. The meetings that Chancellor Zinser will be having with the Senate Council Chair and the Senate Committee on Institutional Finances will involve discussions of these concerns.
Professor Weil said that two or three years ago this same situation arose and there was a very large general meeting for the faculty to attend. He asked if anything was planned for now. Chairperson Schach stated that the Senate Council had not planned any meetings.
Chancellor Zinser stated that one of the best approaches to communicating about these issues now is to communicate directly with the individual deans. They are trying to look at the alternatives they see at this point in time, to deal with the changes that need to be made for FY 98. Different colleges are dealing with it in different ways and colleges have different kinds of challenges in trying to deal with this. So at this point admittedly it is tentative and it is creating some difficulties of the type of which we have just heard. It would in particular be wise to talk to the deans. I will be meeting with the Senate Committee and the Committee may elect then to have another meeting with the Council. Jesse Weil said that he had communicated with his dean and his response was that it looks very likely that things will not be restarted so they are really afraid the programs are going to be in big trouble. We are not going to have growth for this coming year if nothing happens. Chancellor Zinser said she understood. The point being they need to talk with their college deans and within whatever faculty governance context in the college about what range of options may be available with regard to dealing with the realities of the budget. Whether this is a necessary action or whether something else is a better option. But those are the decisions being made at the college level.
Chairperson Schach said the honorary degree discussion needed to be tabled until the March 10, 1997 meeting.
The Chair asked for a waiver of the ten day required notice for the Proposal to Change the Admission Cycle for the BSN Program. The waiver passed in a voice vote.
Agenda Item I: Proposal to Changes in Admission Cycle for BSN Program, College of Nursing.
Change from Fall only to Fall and Spring admissions for the BSN Program's 4 year students.
The change will allow for better utilization of faculty and for a sequential flow through the clinical sequence in Nursing courses, especially providing the structure to allow for a synthesis course at the end of the program. As it exists currently, students do not take the same courses in their final semester which prohibits a true synthesis experience. This proposed change will neither increase nor decrease the annual numbers of students admitted.
The Senate Admissions and Academic Standard Committee and the Senate Council has unanimously approved the proposed changes in the admission cycle for the BSN Program.
Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Jim Applegate, Chair-elect of the Senate Council to introduce the item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the item.
The proposal passed in an unanimous voice vote.
Agenda Item II: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V - Grades and Marking Systems - to establish a plus/minus grading system for The Graduate School
[Add to Section V-5.1.0 the bold sections below]
5.1.0 Grades and Marking Systems
The Graduate School - The following grades are given with respective point value indicated:
- A 4.0
- A- 3.7
- B+ 3.3
- B 3.0
- B- 2.7
- C+ 2.3
- C 2.0
- C- 1.7
- E 0.0
Background and Rationale
The proposed plus/minus grading system will add flexibility to grading and will allow faculty to make finer distinctions in the awarding of grades. A 3.0000 (no rounding) graduate grade point average will remain as the minimum acceptable grade point average in determining probation status and as the minimum grade point average required for graduation. Since the grading system within graduate level courses is more abbreviated due to minimum GPA requirements, the need for finer grade distinctions is necessary to more accurately represent student performance.
The proposal has the approval of the Graduate Council, the Graduate Faculty, and the unanimous approval of the Senate Committee on Academic Standards and the Senate Council.
If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for codification.
Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Applegate for the introduction of the second agenda item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the proposal.
Connie Wood (Graduate School) said that the plus/minus proposal before the Senate originated in the Graduate Council. It went through a year and half discussion both as to whether or not the system should be implemented and how it should be implemented. Before you is the system that was motivated from the fact a great number of faculty wanted to have a finer scale for the evaluation of work in graduate level classes. Graduate students are expected to maintain a B average on their work; one consequence of that is the grading scale only allows A and B. This was proposed as an answer to allow faculty to give greater distinction among the work that is presented by graduate students. Also entailed is a refined scale for quality points. The scale is a balanced scale and builds upon the original 4.0 scale for quality points, 4.0 being for A, 3.0 for B, etc. The modification being made is basically balanced about that original scale with plus or minus 3.0 for the inclusion of the plus or minus on the scale. This was approved by the graduate faculty after a great deal of discussion at the October 21, 1997 Graduate Faculty Meeting.
Hans Gesund (Engineering) asked what the students thought of the plan?
Michael Tomblyn (Student Senator - Graduate School) said that if anyone followed the debate in the student paper they knew how he and many other students felt. As a teaching assistant, he is beginning to see the validity of the arguments for increased numbers in grades, for distinction between students. That is something he can appreciate. The problems with this proposal are two fold. One is with terminal degrees in graduate programs where grades are irrelevant. If they are going to maintain the farce of assessing grades for terminal degrees, it seems insane to perpetuate that even further to make finer and finer distinctions. The other problem is that if a 3.0 is maintained as needed for graduation, there will be lower grades and some graduate students will be lost. Some undergraduates were lost last semester and some undergraduate lost scholarships based on the plus/minus system.
That is really unfortunate. He would like to see this held off because there is a compromise proposal coming that both sides may find acceptable. The graduate students he has spoken to are about ninety percent against plus/minus for themselves. They are for plus/minus for undergraduates, because as teaching assistants they would like to give finer distinctions between grades.
Douglas Poe (Business and Economics) said he would like to go on record rebutting one of the arguments. The idea that only As and Bs are given to graduate students is part of the problem. He gives 15% Cs on the average in his graduate level classes. He does not have a problem with the number of distinctions. If people would make full use of the grade range we have, there would be no argument about how fine an A can be divided when everyone is giving As in their classes.
The question of what is the rationale for having a B+, a C+, but no A+ was asked.
The Chair stated that the answer goes back to the beginning of the discussion of the Arts and Sciences plus/minus proposal. There was a problem in determining the ultimate GPA. David Hamilton (History) said he was on the Graduate Council when this was approved and they debated whether or not to have an A+. It simply came down to the fact that the system would be more uniform not to have an A+.
A student stated she felt they should not vote on systems within each college at the University. Connie Wood (Graduate School) said that the fact that this is not a university system in and of itself completely negates the proposal. This is for all graduate students throughout the university. Graduate students at this University have a separate transcript. It is called a career within the University. It does then have an element of uniformity across the University.
Betty Huff (University Registrar) said for clarification the case of permissive language as in these grades are permitted but not required. The Chair said that if they went with the reading of the rules committee on previous proposals this would be at the discretion of the instructor, however, according to the Ombud good practice would suggest that the instructor indicate at the beginning of the semester in the syllabus what the practice would be.
Michael Tomblyn asked if some of the proponents could inform them of what the pedagogical effects of doing this would be on the graduate level are?
Bradley Canon (Political Science) said that Michael had alluded to some type of compromise proposal that may come up at the next meeting. He asked if they could elaborate.
Michael Tomblyn said he and Professor Michael Kennedy talked about the interests at stake and how they could ameliorate whatever kinds of negative effects have arisen. They felt if the faculty were being honest in the argument, that their desire for intermediate grading is not to harm students but to simply to reward those who work harder. Perhaps they should take a look at a system similar to that of the University of South Carolina which is an intermediate grading system with pluses, no minuses and no A+. That allows the faculty to make the distinctions and reward the students who work harder. It also can not hurt the students.
Jesse Weil (Physics) made the amendment that an A+ with 4.3 quality points be added to the proposal. The amendment was seconded.
Bill Freehling (History) amended the amendment that in recording the final GPA score no one would receive higher than a 4.0. The amendment was seconded. Doug Poe moved to table both the motion and all the amendments. The motion was seconded.
The motion to table discussion failed in a show of hands: 29 for, 31 against.
Jesse Weil said he was not clear about the second amendment. He did not know if it was necessary. He reads transcripts all the time and all you have to do is look on the back of the transcript to find out what the grading scale is and what the maximum GPA is.
Michael Kennedy said the problem was that the number which is the maximum can not be stated, because some students will not have the opportunity to make a 4.3 The clearness of a cap is lost.
Michael Tomblyn asked if the Registrar could comment on the ease of such a system where there would be greater than a 4.0.
Betty Huff stated there would be programming involved.
Hans Gesund wondered about the fairness of the amendment for transfer students who come from a school where 4.0 was the maximum. They will be disadvantaged compared to students who stay. How will their transferred GPA compare to what the students here already have.
Jacqueline Noonan (Medicine) said it was unfair to the students here who would have had a 4.0 had they not received an A-.
Connie Wood stated that quality points and grades are not transferred at the graduate level, only the hours.
Betty Huff asked if the proposal meant they could not have more than a 4.0 or the transcript would not show more than a 4.0. Every semester it would recompute so it would figure those in down the line but the print program would not show it.
Bill Fortune (Law) said they had had plus/minus for years and they have had the A+ and at least one student graduate with better than a 4.0 and his transcript does reflect that. The vote for the amendment to the amendment failed in a show of hands.
Tom Blues (English) said he did not understand why the minus was looked upon as a punishment. If there are minus grades, then the student has the opportunity to receive a higher grade than the previous plus grade.
Joan Callahan said there are cases where she would not be comfortable giving the student an A and would have to give them the B+, but if she had an A- she would use it and the student would benefit from the minus grade.
Joe Schuler (Social Work - Student Senator) stated that for his roommate from last semester the C- was a punishment, he fell to a 1.97 as a result and now is on academic suspension.
The question was called. The vote to stop debate passed in a show of hands.
The amendment passed in a show of hands; 42 for, 23 against, and 5 abstentions.
David Hamilton said that he would urge the Senate to vote for the proposal.
This proposal has been in the works for about three years. He is puzzled by the sense that this is vindictive or punitive. He spends a huge amount of time each year writing letters of recommendation for his students to get jobs, fellowships, or some sort of professional positions. He does this because it is part of their responsibility. There are good students and they want to see them do well. He does not want to undercut the effort put into this by instituting a grading system that will destroy that. The notion that it is a punitive vindictive system is simply wrong. He does not want plus/minus grading at the graduate level so students will have to work harder; the students work hard as it is. If they had more fellowship time they could do better or if they did not have such heavy loads of teaching. This system would be a more accurate reflection of the sort of distinction that exists particularly at the graduate level where he does give an occasional C. It is a highly selected group of students. As and Bs tend to be the vast majority of the grades. This is a modest change of the system, that would be helpful in recognizing the distinctions that do exist.
Lee Edgerton (Academic Ombud) wanted to clarify what was going to happen in terms of the overall grading system. If there is a 500 level course in the College of Agriculture, where there is not plus/minus grading and graduate students are in the class, will the graduate students receive plus/minus grades but the undergraduate students in the course be on a straight grading system?
Connie Wood (Graduate School) said it was her understanding that this will be tied to the student's career. Which means that 500 level courses that do carry graduate credit and appear on the graduate transcript will be on a plus/minus system. Professor Edgerton asked is it applied to 400G level courses? Dr. Wood stated that 400G level courses that carry graduate credit, which they do if they are outside the major. This would have to be something implemented through the students' career.
Joan Callahan (Arts and Sciences) stated that her real concern was the business of letting people formally opt out of the practice. If the change is made, it needs to be made very clear that it is expected that this is the system that everyone will use. That is not to say that anyone has to give any student any particular grade.
It is very important that the Institution be very clear that this is the expectation for all faculty. Otherwise they do lend themselves to inviting individuals to put some students at an unfair disadvantage. That unfair disadvantage in a system like this could be not using the plus/minus system. Her discomfort with going forward with this is that as long as they are going to stay wishy washy on this and let people opt out it is very problematic.
Jesse Weil said that every faculty member must decide in his own mind what grades he is going to give. If the students are clumped right on As or Bs and nothing is filling in the gap, then that is their responsibility or privilege to do it that way. You can not force anyone to give the plus or the minus.
Tom Blues said that misunderstanding needs to be cleared up. The students may earn As, Bs, or Cs, but they have to be given the opportunity to earn all the grades in the scale. He does not think it is right for faculty members to deny students from day one the opportunity to earn the minus or to earn the plus if that is the system. One system across the board. It may turn out there are no minus' or plus' just as it may turn out there are no straight As, Bs, or Cs. The system has to work for everyone. It should be clear that they as a faculty use the one system and not deny students the opportunity to earn the grades in the system. Hans Gesund said that the College of Engineering does not have plus/minus grading. If he has two students in a 500 level course, one a graduate and one an undergraduate they do equal work and both deserve a B+, what happens to the undergraduate student? He can not be given a B+, they can only be given a B and the graduate student will be given a B+. So two students with the same performance will receive two different grades. He is very much opposed to moving to plus/minus grading for the graduate school as long as there are undergraduate colleges that do not have the system.
Connie Wood said that there was a precedence for this, for example the College of Law and Graduate Students with joint programs with Law. In those cases when courses are transferred between careers they have taken off the minus. They have been doing this for many years. She said that would be correct, it was tied to the career and the graduate school transcript would show the plus and the undergraduate would not. She stated if this proposal passed the grading scale would go in the Graduate Bulletin and be available to all graduate students and all graduate faculty. It will be the stated policy of the Graduate School.
Deborah Slaton (Education) said that she could think of an entire major in their college that would fall under the situation that Professor Gesund described in which the Learning and Behavior Disorders coursework is entirely a sequence at the 500 level. It is time to stop and look at this as a whole across the entire University because it is generating these examples in a short period of time. She is opposed to this proposal for the Graduate School for this very reason that the piecemeal approach is problematic and they need to stop it at this point.
Michael Tomblyn said that what Professor Gesund said strikes at the heart of the matter as far as how faculty will be affected by this. He agreed that the minus grade is not punitive and faculty are not being punitive when accessing minus grades. The grading system itself is punitive.
Tom Blues asked if under the new system it be possible for a faculty member to announce on the first day of class that they would not give any plus' or minus'? The Chair answered that was correct. Professor Blues then asked if it were possible under the present system for a faculty member to say they did not believe in C's and B's? The Chair answered that also was correct.
The motion as amended to include the A+ with a point value of 4.3 passed in a show of hands 35 for, 32 against, and 2 abstentions.
Agenda Item III: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section VII and Section VI.
This recommendation is made in response to an NSF site-visit, where the University policies with regards to Research Misconduct were found to be in need of modifications. The recommendations by the NSF review team included the modifications and revisions in the Code of Faculty Responsibility (Section VII, USR), and the Student Rights and Responsibilities (Section VI, USR) handbooks.
[Add to Section VII and Section VI - the bold sections below]
"If the academic offense involves research and/or extramural funding the Administrative Rule for handling the offense is outlined in Administrative Rule II - 4.0.2."
If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for formal codification.
The Chair recognized Jim Applegate, Chair-elect of the Senate Council to present the item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the item and recommended approval.
Professor Bob Houtz Chair of the Research Committee said that this was a very small amendment suggested by the NSF Review Team to be added to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook and the Faculty Handbook. Those amendments were basically to provide a method of directing individuals to the Administrative Rules and Regulations with regards to how offenses would be handled with regards to research misconduct. He said that NSF had complimented the University on the degree of information that it had available to researchers with regards to handling research misconduct.
Jesse Weil asked the effect of the amendment. Professor Houtz said that the effect of the amendment was to draw attention to how research misconduct is handled in the Faculty Handbook and the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook. Professor Weil asked what the Administrative Rule did? Professor Applegate said that they are using the rule, this was just an effort to insert this in places that will let people know to go to look at the rule if they want to know how it is handled. Professor Houtz said this was not changing anything, that the NSF recommendation was just to revise the handbooks such that there would be explicit reference to the ethical standards part of the research misconduct.
The proposal passed in an unanimous voice vote.
Agenda Item IV: Proposal to merge the Departments of Engineering Mechanics and Mechanical Engineering into one unit - Mechanical Engineering. If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the administration for appropriate action.
It is proposed to merge the Department of Engineering Mechanics into the Department of Mechanical Engineering.
A merger of the Departments of Engineering Mechanics with Mechanical Engineering has been discussed periodically for well over a decade. Significant changes in engineering education and research nationally, substantial budget cuts sustained by the College during 1991 and 92, significant enrollment increases, reeducation in faculty size in engineering mechanics, and accreditation actions regarding materials science make this an appropriate time to concentrate budgetary resources and personnel in the College of Engineering by merging the Department of Engineering Mechanics with the Department of Mechanical Engineering. There has been a significant and long-standing association of faculty in both units in research and instructional endeavors. The combination of these two departments and the suspension of the engineering mechanics degree programs [in progress], affords the University with an opportunity to strengthen its academic and research programs in mechanical engineering.
Merger proposals between Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Mechanics were first brought to the College faculty in 1992. In 1993, faculty voted down the merger proposal and the idea was dropped. Various faculty retirements in Engineering Mechanics and issues regarding materials sciences prompted the Dean's appointment of an ad hoc committee in 1995 to study the feasibility of combining the Departments of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics. A secret ballot by faculty in the two units failed to gather the necessary two-thirds support in both units. A final and successful effort at merger was stimulated by the arrival of a new chair in the Department of Mechanical Engineering. Dr. Ram Shah, who is well versed in the manner in which engineering mechanics is administered at Stanford University. An ad hoc committee of faculty was formed from both departments to study the merger questions again, the to study the Stanford alignment as a potential model for the University. The new merger proposal was approved in March 1996 by a sizable majority of the faculty of both units and of the entire College. The Dean has agreed to assure the faculty of the departments involved that the proposal would be implemented as described in the document and that the additional resources described would be provided.
The proposal has been approved by both the Senate Academic Organization and Structure Committee and the Senate Council.
Chairperson Schach asked Professor Applegate to introduce the next item. Professor Applegate review the item and recommended approval.
The proposal passed in an unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:05 p.m.
Betty J. Huff